View Single Post
  #3  
Old February 8th 09, 03:07 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 198
Default "Dark Energy" model of accelerated universe expansion gains support

In article ,
(Eric Flesch) writes:

The subject header is unfounded. The void bubble scenario is just a
mathematician's sandbox, saying "how can we account for observations
by manipulating a physical model, however unlikely". One person
builds a sand castle, the next person kicks it down. This sort of
mathematics-based activity is inevitable considering that dark energy
itself is exactly such a sandbox model, modelling that the universe
itself does unintuitive physical things to satisfy the current state
of observations.

Challenges to dark energy will come from outside the sandbox, where
processes other than dynamical expansion are entertained. We're just
in the flat-Earth stage of cosmology right now, I posit.


While I personally don't agree that we are still in the flat-Earth stage
of cosmology, I also think that dark energy (or smooth tension, or the
cosmological constant) is the best description for what's going on. The
void bubble is a mathematician's sandbox. However, I think it is
important to discuss such "alternative scenarios", whether or not the
person who puts them forward sees himself as a devil's advocate or not.
Jim Peebles put forward many alternative scenarios which were a)
compatible with the data known when they were put forward and b) made
testable predictions. All were falsified when the (usually CMB) data
became better. But they were useful since they pointed out the
difference between "model A is compatible with the current data, but so
is model B" (correct) and "the data imply model A" (incorrect, at least
without additional data or assumptions).